Introducing Legaltech

This year’s Legaltech

This year’s Legaltech conference was held at the Hyatt Regency in San Francisco, CA from July 13th to July 14th. The Conference not only featured several exhibitors: ALM, Catalyst Repository Systems, Inc., BQE Software, Clio, Konica Minolta Business Solutions, and Lawjobs.com to name a few; But also featured several presenters of new and upcoming technology, experts in the industry, and sessions focused on various forms of technology that are built for the legal industry.

Upon arriving

Upon arriving to the Hyatt, on Tuesday, it was evident that this was no small event. Hundreds of people were walking around, heading to vendor booths and attending different speaking sessions. The first session was a Keynote on “The Impact of the Ellen Pao v. Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers Verdict on the Tech Industry”.

After the Keynote, attendees had the option to attend a session discussing eDiscovery in regards to emerging technology, or go to the Exhibit Hall where they could connect with fellow attendees, sponsors, presenters, and exhibitors. If you could not fit all of the booths you wanted to visit, or people you wanted to talk to into one break, there were 2 more breaks throughout the day.

CLE Courses

CLE Courses were prominent throughout the Legaltech conference (a total of 22 between Monday & Tuesday) including: ‘Preserve or Perish’ vs. ‘Destroy or Drown': Managing Electronically Stored Information, E-Discovery Challenges in Government Investigations and Regulatory Actions, The Changing Face of Business and Legal Technology: Looking to 2020 and Beyond, Security – 2015’s Biggest Threat to Client Confidentiality, and New World Cyber Threats.

One of our favorite

One of our favorite sessions of the day was the Legal Disruption Lightning Round One – it was so good, that we even went to Round Two! These “Lightning Rounds” featured presentations and discussions on the latest emerging legal tech companies working to help advance the legal system. After presenting, the presenters would receive feedback from a panel of judges that included not only industry professionals, but also investors. Some of the noteworthy presenters included: Keno Sullivan – Founder of Beagle, Gary Sangha – CEO & Founder of LitIQ, Ray Gallo – CEO & Founder of Leverage, and Ian Nelson – Co-founder of HotShot Legal.

We wrapped up

We wrapped up our day with a CLE course on the “Impact of Emerging Technologies on Proactive IG and Reactive eDiscovery Wearblers, IoT and Social Media… Oh My!” The panel of speakers included Adam Sand – General Counsel at Shopkick; Heidi Maher – a former trial attorney and the Executive Director for Compliance, Governance & Oversight Council; Patrick Heim – Head of Trust & Security at Dropbox; Lara Berger – an attorney in the Division of Privacy and Identity Protection at the FTC; and Robert Brownstone – Technology & eDiscovery Counsel and Chair, ElM Group at Fenwick & West LLP. What a way to learn about data security and the Internet of Things! We realized just how much devices are connected and, “throwing data around”, and what the consequences of information technology are. The panel gave many insights into what data is collected and how vulnerable you really are. They also gave examples of why it is important to update your systems so that you can be less at risk of an attack from hackers.

We can’t wait

We can’t wait to attend next year and see what new and emerging technology, exhibitors, and presenters there are! Thank you Legaltech for the great experience & thank you to all of those in attendance who we were able to connect with! #LTWC15

Great news for those doing court business in Riverside County! The new Banning Courthouse location opened for business on May 4, reports The Press Enterprise, with new processes that the court hopes will increase efficiencies. The new location is also considered a “green” courthouse. The abundant number of skylights, portholes and windows bring in natural light, and sensor-equipped courtrooms automatically turn off the lights when the room is not in use. There is even a bike rack outside, encouraging those employees who are willing to bike to work!

According to The Press Enterprise, some of the new and improved features of the Banning courthouse include:

Paying traffic tickets without having to experience the inconvenience of waiting in a long security line

Utilizing a self-help center for pro pers representing themselves in a case

Free Wi-Fi access

More courthouse employees

A more spacious courthouse with additional courtrooms

Electronic court calendars mounted outside courtrooms and in the lobby

The Press Enterprise also reported that the courthouse was built on a $63.2 million budget, and that the Riverside Superior Court is planning to build a new justice center in Menifee, designed to replace the current courthouse located in Hemet. The projected completion date is 2021.

Don’t forget that One Legal can help you with your filing needs in Riverside Superior Court. Let us do the work for you. For more information, contact our Customer Support Department!

Judicial Council Invites Public Comment on Proposed Rule Amendments

The Judicial Council is inviting the public to comment on proposed rule amendments that are scheduled for implementation in January of 2016.

There are quite a few proposed changes to existing rules that the Judicial Council has listed.

Some of the topics open to comment are: Appellate, Civil and Small Claims, Court Technology, Criminal, Domestic Violence, Family and Juvenile, Judicial Administration, Legislative Proposals, Probate and Mental Health, and Tribal Court–State Court Forum.

The Judicial Council has posted the following proposed rule amendment regarding the timing of electronic service:

“Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 addresses the time of service of supporting and opposing papers for specified motions. It provides that the notice period before a hearing is extended a certain number of days—which vary depending on whether the motion is served by mail, facsimile transmission, express mail, or another method of overnight delivery—and it excludes certain papers from the extension. Although Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6 and rule 2.251 of the California Rules of Court provide for electronic service and specify that the notice period before a hearing and any right or duty to act or respond within a specified period or on a date certain after service of the document are extended two court days if a document is served electronically, section 1005 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not include electronic service among the methods of service in that statute. The proposal would amend section 1005 to (1) clarify that service of motion papers may be made electronically, and (2) provide that if a document is served electronically, the notice period before a hearing is extended two court days.”

Become an Instant Expert: Avoid a Rejected San Diego eFiling

You may have seen our recent post on avoiding a rejected eFiling in San Diego. We have great news! We have released the next installment of our Instant Expert series. Continuing our quest to help you become indispensable to your law firm, we have created another short “how-to” guide that will not only simplify your day-to-day work life, but ensure that your San Diego eFiling is as error free as possible. If you are eFiling in San Diego Superior Court, you will want to review this guide!

Our fourth Instant Expert guide provides you with five must-know tips on ensuring that your eFiling is accepted.

Reasons for rejected eFilings include:

Failure to make your documents text searchable

Exhibits are not bookmarked

Not all case participants are listed

and more!

If you would like to become even more of an expert in San Diego eFiling and are interested in further training, you can sign up for our free, MCLE accredited course held every other Wednesday at 1:00 p.m.! You can also attend any of our other courses. We also keep you up to date on court closures, reduction in clerk’s hours and other pertinent court news.

Do not hesitate to contact our Training Team with any questions! We are always here to help.

Law Day Presents: Magna Carta – Symbol of Freedom Under the Law

To the legal community, May 1 is more than just the promise of wildflowers and sunshine. The first of May is Law Day; it is a celebration of the role nomocracy plays in everyday American lives and the importance of the law in our country. President Eisenhower declared May 1st Law Day in 1958, and from its inception it has been marked by events honoring what the law represents.

The American Bar Association designated this year’s theme to be: “Magna Carta – Symbol of Freedom Under the Law.” In keeping with tradition, institutions nationwide will be hosting and participating in programs dedicated to honoring this special day while incorporating the theme.

On Friday, Merced Superior Court will host its annual event. Students from surrounding local high schools created murals that represented the Law Day theme. The murals will be showcased at 11:45 a.m. in the court’s lobby. If you are interested in participating in this event, you can read more here.

The Fresno Bar Association is joining in the festivities and will be hosting Law Day at Courthouse Park from 12 – 1:30 p.m. The event is free to the public.

To learn about more Law Day events taking place near you and how to incorporate the celebration into your own office, visit the American Bar Association website.

Positive Outlook on State of Affairs for Solano Superior Court

The Solano Superior Court has released a somewhat positive status update on the state of their affairs, reports Jess Sullivan of the Daily Republic. Sullivan, who was covering a luncheon at the Rancho Solano Country Club, quoted Solano Superior Court Presiding Judge E. Bradley Nelson stating, “We’re in reasonably good shape, but not great shape.”

Considering that many California courts have been asking for increased funding just to maintain operating hours, this is relatively good news.

Some of the positive changes addressed in the Daily Republic’s Article included:

A new children’s waiting room for the public at the Fairfield courthouse.

A decrease in the number of traffic tickets.

Sullivan also reported that in addition to these changes, the court has confirmed a two year contract with court staff that includes pay raises. They have also launched special programs for certain criminal cases for veterans and families with a family member dealing with a domestic criminal charge.

However, according to Sullivan’s Article in the Daily Republic, Judge Nelson made it abundantly clear that as of right now, the court has no plans to reopen civil and family law clerical offices in the Vallejo branch. Sullivan noted that Judge Nelson did disclose that the court is planning on implementing eFiling for certain documents in particular cases.

You don’t have to navigate the seemingly endless onslaught of court changes alone, however. We recently posted an article highlighting how One Legal can help bridge the gap between you and the court, simplifying your day-to-day work life.

The last few years have seen courts such as San Diego, San Francisco and Orange County execute eFiling programs that have been very successful. If you are interested in learning more about eFiling and eService in these counties, sign up for any of our free, MCLE accredited courses!

Did You Know:

California Courts have been majorly impacted by budget cuts

“In what ways am I being impacted?”

The California Judicial Branch has recently introduced some intriguing news about the California Courts. Courts have been reducing hours, reducing services, reducing staff, and closing their doors.

Whether this means waiting in longer lines, having to re-schedule your calendar to be at the courthouse during their limited hours of operation, or having less access to legal services, you will have to take more actions to get your orders placed on-time.

Last week our own Product Training & Research Manager, Lili Daniel, had the honor to speak about the benefits of eFiling in Orange County at a meeting for the Trusts and Estates Section of the Orange County Bar Association.

The prestigious panel of speakers included Michelle Norhausen, Probate and Mental Health Unit Manager of the Orange County Superior Court; Maria Romero, Probate eFiling and Appellate Supervisor of the Orange County Superior Court; Kimberly Shields, Probate Courtroom and Clerk’s Office Supervisor of the Orange County Superior Court, and Chris Trindade from DDS Legal.

The event was well attended by the local Trusts and Estates Section members interested in learning more about the eFiling process. Their interests included: state and local rules, court updates, and how to avoid a rejected filing. The attendees then had the opportunity to address the panel with their questions.

Lili covered key Orange County eFiling requirements, including the following:

Signatures: Pursuant to CRC 2.257:

All documents filed electronically and including original signatures shall be maintained by the party filing the document.

eFiled documents are deemed signed. This means you can use an electronic signature or leave the signature line blank. As stated above, the party must always be able to produce the original signed document, but that version does not have to uploaded for filing.

Documents with exhibits must be properly formatted:

Exhibits must be attached to the supporting document, not uploaded separately.

Exhibits must be bookmarked.

Document File Size Limits:

You can upload up to 120MB total per transaction (with some exceptions).

Orange County offers an eFiling Triage line for your urgent questions:

(657) 622-5314

You will need to reference your Court Transaction number.

eFiling Submission deadlines:

The eFiling deadline for same-day filing for all Civil, Probate & Mental Health cases is midnight.

Filing Fees:

The cost of eFiling is a flat rate of $9.95 per transaction.

The cost of eService is $0.99 per recipient, capped at $9.90.

Courtesy copies delivery (optional) is $26.95 for all documents.

If your eFiling is over 75 pages, the court recommends that you deliver a courtesy copy.

eFiling Status and Conformed copies

You can check the status of your eFiling and access your conformed copies by logging into your One Legal account and clicking on the appropriate order number.

Many thanks to the Orange County Bar Association for allowing us the opportunity to speak at this informative event! If you would like to learn more about eFiling in Orange County, sign up for our free MCLE accredited Training or contact our Training Team with your questions.

San Bernardino County Superior Court Notice Effective April 1, 2015

Our goal for our Updates page is to constantly keep you up-to-date and informed on changes happening to the courts.

These updates may include:

Notices of closure.

Changes in hours.

Reductions of service days.

Changes to calendars.

And more….

We’ve recently updated our page with items for San Bernardino County Superior Court.

The update for San Bernardino Superior Court is regarding Civil Law and Motion Reservations.

Effective April 1st, the court will require parties to file their civil motion and pay the required fees within five court days from the date of reservation. Failure to submit the moving papers within that five day time frame will result in the automatic cancellation of the reservation.

Click here to view the entire notice, especially if you have a filing in this jurisdiction!

If you would like to look at our page for other court notices in California, please click here.

Last month, we discussed what you need to know about eService in California. Many people don’t know that you are allowed to eServe in all 58 California counties! It not only makes your life easier, it can save you time and money and create efficiencies in your office. Is also simplifies calendaring! Julie Goran, author of Litigation By the Numbers, has written an article on this very topic. She is an expert on the subject of calendaring. You can follow her on Facebook or check out her website if you are interested in learning more! Check out her article on eService and calendaring below:

eService provides significant advantages over service by mail, fax, or overnight delivery; some pretty obvious, some not so much. The most obvious advantages relate to the savings of trees, time, and money associated with document processing and service itself. In California State Court, another benefit, or more accurately, a series of benefits, relates to calculating deadlines.

In general, it is much easier to calculate deadlines triggered by eService than it is to calendar deadlines triggered by any method other than personal delivery. Even more significant, however, eService of notice of certain types of motions allows the moving party to avoid completely a little-known trap that could very easily result in insufficient notice to opposing parties.

The Extension of Time for eService is Much Less Confusing Than Extensions For Fax or Overnight Delivery.

With certain exceptions (see Calendaring Under the C.C.P. — Extending Time Based On Service Method . . . or Not, documents not personally served require specific extensions of time. To calculate a deadline to act or respond or a non-motion notice period, one must add two court days for service by fax or overnight delivery. (C.C.P. § 1013) However, to calculate the last day to serve notice of a “regular motion” (i.e., not a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication (“MSJ or MSA”)) by fax or overnight delivery, one must add two calendar days. (C.C.P. § 1005) Yet, to calculate the last day to serve notice of an MSJ or MSA by fax or overnight delivery, one must add two court days. (C.C.P. § 437c)

This difference among the statutes is unfortunate. It leads to confusion and calendaring errors. A significant number of practitioners and support staff are not even aware that the length of the extension for service by fax or overnight delivery depends upon which statute applies, which, in turn, depends upon what is being served. Indeed, the question: “how much time is added for service by fax or overnight service” is really a trick question; it cannot possibly be answered without more information. Yet, people answer it all of the time.

eService is so much simpler. Under C.C.P. § 1010.6, the extension, if any, is two court days. Period. This is true whether one is calculating the deadline to respond to a discovery demand, the last day to serve a motion to compel, or the last day to serve an MSJ or MSA. So, calendaring as it relates to any eServed document avoids the “is it two court days or two calendar days?” question.

eService Does Not Require Adjustments for Holidays and Weekends.

Deadlines based upon calendar days (e.g., service by mail in all instances, service of regular motions by fax or overnight delivery) may initially fall on a weekend or holiday, requiring an adjustment under C.C.P. § 12a(a). Unfortunately, many practitioners and support staff do not know whether to move the deadline forward or backward. With eService, that dilemma never arises. Why? If one is counting court days, the last day can never land on a weekend or holiday.

So, in California State Court, eService generally has benefits over service by mail, fax, and overnight delivery. However, the advantages of eServing notices of motion for regular motions are even more significant.

eService Avoids C.C.P. § 12c Problems.

Calculating the last day to serve notice of a regular motion requires the application of at least two statutes: C.C.P. § 1005 and C.C.P. § 12c. C.C.P. § 1005 requires 16 court days’ notice, with a five calendar day extension for service by mail within California, and a two calendar day extension for service by fax or overnight delivery. The need to combine court days and calendar days in a single calculation is fraught with problems. In that regard, deadline calculations will differ depending upon the order in which one counts the two sets of days (court days first or calendar days first) as well as the direction in which one counts those days (forward from the notice date or backward from the hearing date).

This ambiguity was resolved by the enactment of C.C.P. § 12c, which provides that the last day to serve notice is calculated by counting backward from the hearing date starting with the 16 court days, and then adding the applicable extension. However, there remains a trap that greatly complicates the other end of the motion-related calendaring equation — determining the first available hearing date based on the notice date.

Significant detail and several examples may be found in Certainty in Calculating Hearing-Related Deadlines in California State Court. For now, however, suffice it to say that if, on a Monday or a Tuesday, one were to calculate the first available hearing date for a motion, to be served by mail that same day, by counting forward 16 court days and adding five calendar days, insufficient notice would be given under C.C.P. § 12c. In that regard, if one were to count backward from that hearing date 16 court days plus the applicable calendar day extension as C.C.P. § 12c dictates, the last day for notice would actually be at least three days prior to the service date. Similarly, if, on a Thursday, one were to calculate the first available hearing date for a motion, to be served by fax or overnight delivery that day, by counting forward from the notice date, insufficient notice would be given. The disparity is caused solely by the fact that, sometimes, counting court days and calendar days forward yields a different result than counting them backward, i.e., the reason C.C.P. § 12c was enacted in the first place.

The good news is that if notice of motion is eServed, the problem disappears. Why? Because one simply has to add two court days to the 16 court day period, i.e., giving 18 court days’ notice. 18 court days is 18 court days regardless of the direction in which one counts. Thus, if one counts forward 18 court days to determine the first available hearing date, one can be assured that a backward count of 18 court days from that hearing date will land on the notice date, resulting in sufficient notice under C.C.P. § 12c.

By switching to eService, all practitioners save the trees, time, and money associated with document processing. For California practitioners, eService may even help prevent those calendaring errors which could lead to malpractice. There is no better time than now to make the switch! For more information about eService in California, including when it is authorized, how it is accomplished, and more, check out the Filing, Service, and Calendaring Chapter of Litigation By The Numbers®.

One Legal, formerly Fax & File, offers professional and convenient legal services including court filing, nationwide process service, courtesy copy delivery, and nationwide court research and public record document retrieval. eFiling (electronic court filing), with eService (electronic process serving), is available in courts that accept electronic court documents and eService is available for all civil actions filed in California Superior courts.